FASTS Gives an Update on the Evolution of the Research Quality Framework.
(September 26, 2006)|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News & Views item - September 2006 |
FASTS Gives an Update on the Evolution of the Research Quality Framework.
(September 26, 2006)
Bradley Smith, Executive Director of the Federation of
Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS) reports that following
recent briefings and discussions with the Chief Scientist, Jim Peacock, and
representatives of the Department of Education, Science and Training (DEST), it
seems the
Research Quality Framework Development Advisory Group (RQFDAG) has taken
account of key points made by FASTS and others in the recent submissions on the
'principles paper'.
The minimum size of assessable groups will be 5, down from 10 - no upper limit to apply.
All eligible researchers may be included - level B and up - but universities are to decide the groups. Staff must be employed 0.4 FTE to be included.
Both quality and impact will be rated on a 5 point scale and combined in some way, although it is not known how a new matrix will operate. (FASTS urges the use of a matrix - while quality and impact should be reported separately we strongly oppose separate funding pots)
Each researcher is to submit 4 pieces of work for assessment of quality and metrics are to be used to 'support' the submissions.
Impact measured by an impact statement, which must be auditable.
A Template is to be developed to cover impact statements - no lengthy essays which was implied in the previous RQFDAG principles paper.
Publications are to be attributed to the institution where the staff member is located at time of the audit. However, the staff member may be required to have a residence period - perhaps a year. (This is seen as a sensible trade-off between issues around 'poaching' on one side - and the administrative nightmare of tracking staff movements to keep tabs on what percentage of a researcher's time over the relevant assessment period each institution might be able to claim)
Bradley Smith in his
capacity as FASTS' Executive Director says, "In my view, the continuing
absence of a resource allocation model makes it impossible to really debate
implementation sensibly. Moreover, I do not get a strong sense that the
practicalities are being really thought through. For example, there are about
33,000 FTE research and teaching/research academics (according to DEST 2004
data). Assuming only 30% of these qualify for assessment in groups for the RQF
that means there will be 39,600 papers or other research outputs that need to
be assessed to evaluate the quality rankings, i.e. roughly 3300 per
assessment panel - assuming even distribution. That is never going to happen -
so why pretend otherwise? I suspect that the only practical solution is to
assess quality through metrics - as imperfect as they might be and allowing
for panel assessment in areas where metrics are not developed or relevant (e.g.
fine arts). This still means the the panels will have interesting challenges
trying to assess research groups' non-academic impact.
"In terms of process, the RQFDAG intends to provide final advice to the
Minister in October. Whether the Minister makes any announcement is a separate
question. I would be very surprised if the government walked a way from an RQF
despite the serious issues of implementation ."
Ah well, look on the bright side, the Australian Vice-Chancellors' Committee is to morph into Universities Australia.
|
|
